A psychological flexibility conceptualisation of the experience of injustice among individuals with chronic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Accumulating evidence suggests that the experience of injustice in patients with chronic pain is associated with poorer pain-related outcomes. Despite this evidence, a theoretical framework to understand this relationship is presently lacking. This review is the first to propose that the psychological flexibility model underlying Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) may provide a clinically useful conceptual framework to understand the association between the experience of injustice and chronic pain outcomes. A literature review was conducted to identify research and theory on the injustice experience in chronic pain, chronic pain acceptance, and ACT. Research relating injustice to chronic pain outcomes is summarised, the relevance of psychological flexibility to the injustice experience is discussed, and the subprocesses of psychological flexibility are proposed as potential mediating factors in the relationship between injustice and pain outcomes. Application of the psychological flexibility model to the experience of pain-related injustice may provide new avenues for future research and clinical interventions for patients with pain. SUMMARY POINTS: • Emerging research links the experience of pain-related injustice to problematic pain outcomes. • A clinically relevant theoretical framework is currently lacking to guide future research and intervention on pain-related injustice. • The psychological flexibility model would suggest that the overarching process of psychological inflexibility mediates between the experience of injustice and adverse chronic pain outcomes. • Insofar as the processes of psychological inflexibility account for the association between injustice experiences and pain outcomes, methods of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) may reduce the impact of injustice of pain outcomes. • Future research is needed to empirically test the proposed associations between the experience of pain-related injustice, psychological flexibility and pain outcomes, and whether ACT interventions mitigate the impact of pain-related injustice on pain outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".